% Generated by roxygen2: do not edit by hand
% Please edit documentation in R/dist.R
\name{dist_summary}
\alias{dist_summary}
\title{Summarise posterior distributions}
\usage{
dist_summary(m, expanded.names = NULL, drop.vignettes = T, ...)
}
\arguments{
\item{m}{Matrix, either a coerced parameter from a \code{stanfit} object
or output from the \code{osp} or \code{ord} transformation
functions. Columns correspond to country-dates.}

\item{expanded.names}{Row names to expand the summarised time
series to using \code{\link{stretch}}.}

\item{drop.vignettes}{Boolean. Whether to drop vignette rows prior
to summarisation. Note, if set to \code{FALSE}, but
\code{expanded.names} is not \code{NULL}, the function will
return an error since vignette identifiers are not valid
country-dates.}

\item{...}{Additional arguments passed to the \code{\link{stretch}}
function.}
}
\value{
DataFrame containing the mean, median, sd,
    codehigh/low68, codehigh/low95.
}
\description{
\code{dist_summary} summarises a country-date matrix where each column
is a posterior distribution.
}
\details{
\code{dist_summary} will preserve entire columns of
    \code{NA} under the assumption that they're missing
    country-dates; however, it will fail when only a single value
    within a column is \code{NA} since we never want partial
    missingness within our posterior distribution.

    More importantly, why did we call this function
    \code{dist_summary} when there's clearly a much better option?
    Great question, besides to add to the general confusion
    surrounding this package, it's also nice to minimize conflicts
    with \code{dplyr}.
}
